I am no Biologist but I have often wondered at thew high levels of successful evolution mammals can do compared to the relatively slow levels that reptiles and insects seem to have.
I am a biologist, you've got that totally backwards (it's okay though, it's for counterintuitive reasons). By most evolutionary standards, the bugs own this planet. A famous geneticist named Haldane was asked once "knowing what you do about nature, what can you tell me about God?" He said "He has an inordinate fondness for beetles." They're incredibly diverse compared to mammals. Insects dramatically outnumber us and out breed us. And their evolution rate is extremely fast due to their extreme proliferation. Pioneering studies of genetics and evolution almost always involve Drosophila flies because you can get tens of thousands of generations in a research career (and genetic change to match that) wheras you could probably get at most two human generations and only hundreds of mice generations. As one last testament to the (evolutionary) superiority of insects: cockroaches have been here before we have and will undoubtedly survive after we have nuked ourselves off the planet, they might slow down for a generation, but they've far outspecialized mammals.
Keep in mind that evolution doesn't mean higher, smarter, faster, it just means more fit to their niche. A bigger brain has given us the power to make a civilization and big buildings, but evolutionary fitness is actually measured in how many offspring you have, since that's the goal ultimately in evolution, and bugs have us whipped there.
It would allow for much faster adaption if instead of reinventing new structures at random all our bodies had to do was express other "Junk" genes at random.
That is an accepted theory, one which the current results do support (I think, I haven't read the article.) It's also worth noting that plenty of times, non-junk DNA gets co-opted for different purposes. What appears to have happened fairly often is that a gene that's needed for something gets copied, so some organism has two functional copies of it, and then one is free to be changed slightly to different purposes. I don't know the statistics, but there are huge families of closely related genes which have different purposes but were at one point probably carbon copies that now do other things.
Every time early researchers solve part of a problem they seem to label the part they haven't solved as being unimportant or irrelevant.
Maybe it's different for different sciences, but in cell or molecular biology that is not the case. Most papers I read specifically adress the unknowns in the discussion section, usually a one line thing that amounts to "we don't understand why this happened in our experiments, but it is very important" or "This helps but it isn't the complete picture, we still need to do X, Y, and Z." Other times they suggest hypotheses or models that are not supported yet by the literature and say those should be tested next.
Part of the reasons they point this out is because typically the lab that published the paper is going to be putting out research on that soon, intends to look at it, and/or is genuinely intrigued by it. Nearly all answers in science raise more questions than they answer if you're doing it right at this stage.
What you may be confused by is that the meat of the article is going to be about parts the researchers HAVE figured out and want the world to know. It would be totally backwards for most of the research article to be focused on what isn't yet known. "Yeah, our evidence supports the idea that so called 'junk' DNA probably gave rise to some of our features, heres a picture supporting that, but lets focus on what we don't know, you can ask us the next time you see us how we determined this junk DNA gave us thumbs if you're really interested. How about the rest of it though? I wonder what it does. Mystery!"
It also might be that you're reading the dumbed down article linked to instead of the actual primary literature, IE the stuff a journalist wrote instead of the researchers. The actual article (probably requires a subscription, but here http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5894/1346) focuses on this one example that they DO know about already (I just skimmed it myself). And indeed if you can't access the article yourself I can tell you they do explicitly point out what they dont' know without saying it's unimportant or irellevant. Quite the opposite.
The role of CENTG2 in limb development has not been evaluated. Mouse Gbx2 is expressed in the developing limb, but Gbx2 null mice have not been described as showing abnormal limbs (25). The potential impact of humans pecific changes in the expression of these genes on limb development thus remains to be explored.
The article also does you one better and suggests strategies for further studies, using their study as an example
Independent of these considerations, our study suggests that adaptive nucleotide substitution altered the function of a developmental enhancer in humans, and illustrates a strategy that could be used across the genome to understand at a molecular level how human development evolved through cisregulatory change
The researchers are far from arrogantly assuming they know all that is important. They know better than anyone the limitations of their research. It's the journalists and non-scientists who are trying to make it sound like a complete picture, since that's the better story.
The summary makes it sound like you can't buy nukes until you joing the NSG. How much is it to join the NSG? That depends, how many hookers can you hire for the UN security council?
When I read dogfighting I was hoping for an online virtual dog-fight game, where you could train (read: starve and abuse) your pit bull and take him to some redneck house and fight them and bet money. Maybe as a minigame in the next Madden.
While I'm opposed to animal cruelty and think people who do real dogfights should be fed to their own dogs, I'm not opposed to VIRTUAL animial cruelty. Just ask my tamogatchi, or any of the residents of Hell, my animal crossing town.
Okay I don't win the analogy award. Was it so bad that you couldn't get my point? If the guy didn't want to use facebook, he wouldn't be complaining, he would just stop using it. He's complaining, so saying "just stop using it then" is not really an insightful suggestion, anymore than "You don't like bush? Move to france" is a helpful suggestion.
That was marked as insightful? A little like the old "If you don't like the way Bush runs america, you can move, america sucks anyway." That's not a good solution. Yes, there are issues with it, but there are some good uses with it too. For one thing, it's a great procrastination tool.
Begs the question "Why is this under YOUR rights online?" It should be under "non-american rights online" or rather "Terrorists getting what they deserve."
I disagree with the assesment of portal. The little sounds were great and haunting. I think that's what he was referring to more than the audio, and Glados' voice really took the cake (yeah, I went there). Plus...
***SPOILERS!!! DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY BEATEN IT!!!***
I remember the music not actually going with the puzzles. During the first part of the game, the only music I remember was the cheezy song playing over the radio, which was actually quite ominous after a while. The second actual music I remember was the tense music as you were being carried to your fiery doom, which really did get my heart pumping. The third was during the actual end battle which didn't help much, but Glados's voice(s) and dialogue really stole that act anyway. The fourth and best music was during the credits. I'm still amazed at that one. It helped end the game on a whimsical, not quite ominous note that also did a great job reflecting the glados character.
It did have sort of ambient sounds that sounded like instruments sorta. The one time I remember that really standing out was when you came across the first hidden alcove with crazy writings on the wall from test subjects who went insane.
Portal did have amazing audio and soundtrack both in the very subtle use of mood-setting music, which made it so effective, and the brilliance of the few songs which were in it. It's quite incorrect to say it was just "solve the puzzle" soundtrack.
Now completely off topic, but someone pointed out to me that the best option all around is to bring your own cloth bags. No waste there, even paper bags are more wasteful than re-using one. Also they don't rip. And a lot of places give you discounts on the order of 5 cents per bag, for what that's worth (about 20 cents on average is the answer there.)
To be honest, I really just do it to decrease the number of trips I have to make to the dumpster, for the smugness, and because some of those grocery baggers look like they need the mental stimulation.
Vint Cerf may have created the internet, but I'm a fortune teller and therefore have more authority over the future of the internet. The future is not robots, it's ham sandwiches. Amazing, isn't it? It will give you what I call telesancwichessence.
There are dozens of other choices, but none where I can virtually fight vampires AND do virtual cheerleading. Also Buffy has lesbian witches. Therefore no, there aren't any BETTER choices.
I don't expect absolute proof. I do, however, expect some proof that a computer model works before I base my actions on it.
Why exactly? When the risks of doing nothing are greater than the risks of being proactive. CO2 soaks up heat, there's more CO2 in the atmosphere. That's not enough to convince you that we should switch from oil and coal? Do you also need a computer model to convince you that we're running out of oil (and coal too, although last I heard we've got quite a bit more time on that)?
Well, I think the reason the people you identify as the global warming industry don't mention that is because that's not what's changing. Water vapor is not driving global warming if it's happening, the CO2 is.
If 65 degrees is the perfect temperature for you, and you set the thermostat is set for 65 degrees, that's just perfect. If someone comes along and pushes it up 5 more degrees you're going to be hot. If you say "hey why'd you turn it up to 70" and he says "don't blame me, I turned it up only 5 degrees, you did most of it!" you're going to think he's an argumentative asshole who is still responsible for the house being too hot even if he's telling the truth.
CO2 is the problem, the climate was working fine with the water vapor.
Frankly, it would be idiotic to mention the water vapor to the american public as it would only confuse them as you have been confused. The main reason little has been done about climate change is because you can't prove it in ten words or less to the public, it's a more complicated story that is easily obfuscated by throwing in facts like you just did without context.
I admit I don't have much proof that the PS3 is doing poorly, but the wiki pages say the PS3 has sold numbers that are lower than the 360. Hard to account for the gap in releases, but the point is that it's not a blowaway sucess compared to the 360. It's also not very scientific, but I don't personally know anyone with a PS3, I know of many with 360s. That could be due to the Japan thing. And with games, the tide certainly seems to be going in the favor of the 360.
Reguardless, the 360 is not the worst console, that's absurd.
That's some shoddy logic there. Extreme oversimplification. The 360 has lost a lot of money due to the technical problems. The logical conclusion there is to fix those problems and not make the same mistakes, yet you seem willing to declare a microsoft console as fundamentally a bad idea that can never work. Tell me it's not just because you're upset about the state of PC gaming.
PC gaming is dying out because people like to play games rather than wasting time on computer maintenece. I know what your opinion of us must be, but I get no joy out of installing new software or hardware so I can play the latest game. I could definitely learn how to do that, but I much prefer plugging my console into the TV, putting the disc in, and playing immediately. I play games to relax, not to do work. MS spending money on the PC market would be a waste.
I also have to point out that the PS3 is not doing great either. You'd have me believe that the next console is going to be just nintendo out there alone?
I think it's one of the surest signs ever of our arrogance as a species that we had ONE well studied theory predicting temperature change, and when it did, we attributed it to that theory without much in the way of a causal relationship study.
I find it arrogant to condem the entire species for the logical errors of a few dirty, dirty hippies!
Kidding about the dirty hippies part, but I do have a real point: the debate about global warming is non-scientists using non-scientific arguments to advance their non-scientific prejudices reguardless of truth.
Emphasis on the non-science part there. Just want to clarify that it's not that no one is trying to prove cause and effect, it's that most of the noise has nothing to do about hypothesis testing.
I also don't know about calling it arrogance. We know CO2 soaks up heat and we know there's a lot of CO2 being released. That right there to me justifies taking preventative steps. Of course, there are a powerful few very opposed to this. The resulting controversy is very predictable. It would be nice to pre-empt that with hard science, but it remains to be seen if proving it wrong or right is possible. It would also be great if we could just deal with it once we know for sure, but of course we have reason to suspect that would be a foolish way to go.
The flaw in the species that I see is the inability to see things as more than a dichotomy. It seems like too many people have boiled it down to "Do we save the environment or the economy," been unable to answer that, and settled for which advocates do they like better, the hippies or the lawyers?
Slashdot Mirror
Also the fact that it looks like a CD player is a feature, not a bug! I could leave mine by the dumpster and no one would steal it.
My Ipod is made entirely of gas. It plays one song called "fart."
I am no Biologist but I have often wondered at thew high levels of successful evolution mammals can do compared to the relatively slow levels that reptiles and insects seem to have.
I am a biologist, you've got that totally backwards (it's okay though, it's for counterintuitive reasons). By most evolutionary standards, the bugs own this planet. A famous geneticist named Haldane was asked once "knowing what you do about nature, what can you tell me about God?" He said "He has an inordinate fondness for beetles." They're incredibly diverse compared to mammals. Insects dramatically outnumber us and out breed us. And their evolution rate is extremely fast due to their extreme proliferation. Pioneering studies of genetics and evolution almost always involve Drosophila flies because you can get tens of thousands of generations in a research career (and genetic change to match that) wheras you could probably get at most two human generations and only hundreds of mice generations. As one last testament to the (evolutionary) superiority of insects: cockroaches have been here before we have and will undoubtedly survive after we have nuked ourselves off the planet, they might slow down for a generation, but they've far outspecialized mammals.
Keep in mind that evolution doesn't mean higher, smarter, faster, it just means more fit to their niche. A bigger brain has given us the power to make a civilization and big buildings, but evolutionary fitness is actually measured in how many offspring you have, since that's the goal ultimately in evolution, and bugs have us whipped there.
It would allow for much faster adaption if instead of reinventing new structures at random all our bodies had to do was express other "Junk" genes at random.
That is an accepted theory, one which the current results do support (I think, I haven't read the article.) It's also worth noting that plenty of times, non-junk DNA gets co-opted for different purposes. What appears to have happened fairly often is that a gene that's needed for something gets copied, so some organism has two functional copies of it, and then one is free to be changed slightly to different purposes. I don't know the statistics, but there are huge families of closely related genes which have different purposes but were at one point probably carbon copies that now do other things.
Every time early researchers solve part of a problem they seem to label the part they haven't solved as being unimportant or irrelevant.
Maybe it's different for different sciences, but in cell or molecular biology that is not the case. Most papers I read specifically adress the unknowns in the discussion section, usually a one line thing that amounts to "we don't understand why this happened in our experiments, but it is very important" or "This helps but it isn't the complete picture, we still need to do X, Y, and Z." Other times they suggest hypotheses or models that are not supported yet by the literature and say those should be tested next.
Part of the reasons they point this out is because typically the lab that published the paper is going to be putting out research on that soon, intends to look at it, and/or is genuinely intrigued by it. Nearly all answers in science raise more questions than they answer if you're doing it right at this stage.
What you may be confused by is that the meat of the article is going to be about parts the researchers HAVE figured out and want the world to know. It would be totally backwards for most of the research article to be focused on what isn't yet known. "Yeah, our evidence supports the idea that so called 'junk' DNA probably gave rise to some of our features, heres a picture supporting that, but lets focus on what we don't know, you can ask us the next time you see us how we determined this junk DNA gave us thumbs if you're really interested. How about the rest of it though? I wonder what it does. Mystery!"
It also might be that you're reading the dumbed down article linked to instead of the actual primary literature, IE the stuff a journalist wrote instead of the researchers. The actual article (probably requires a subscription, but here http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5894/1346) focuses on this one example that they DO know about already (I just skimmed it myself). And indeed if you can't access the article yourself I can tell you they do explicitly point out what they dont' know without saying it's unimportant or irellevant. Quite the opposite.
The role of CENTG2 in limb development has not been evaluated. Mouse Gbx2 is expressed in the developing limb, but Gbx2 null mice have not been described as showing abnormal limbs (25). The potential impact of humans pecific changes in the expression of these genes on limb development thus remains to be explored.
The article also does you one better and suggests strategies for further studies, using their study as an example
Independent of these considerations, our study suggests that adaptive nucleotide substitution altered the function of a developmental enhancer in humans, and illustrates
a strategy that could be used across the genome to understand at a molecular level how human development evolved through cisregulatory change
The researchers are far from arrogantly assuming they know all that is important. They know better than anyone the limitations of their research. It's the journalists and non-scientists who are trying to make it sound like a complete picture, since that's the better story.
The summary makes it sound like you can't buy nukes until you joing the NSG. How much is it to join the NSG? That depends, how many hookers can you hire for the UN security council?
When I read dogfighting I was hoping for an online virtual dog-fight game, where you could train (read: starve and abuse) your pit bull and take him to some redneck house and fight them and bet money. Maybe as a minigame in the next Madden.
While I'm opposed to animal cruelty and think people who do real dogfights should be fed to their own dogs, I'm not opposed to VIRTUAL animial cruelty. Just ask my tamogatchi, or any of the residents of Hell, my animal crossing town.
I was going to say they should respect the sun's privacy. We shouldn't be investigating parts of the sun where the sun don't shine.
Hmm... That got modded "overrated" despite the fact that it had not been mode-rated yet. I can imagine four explanations:
1. It's a self-fulfilling moderation. "This post will be unnecessarily moderated. Down."
2. Someone was trying to agree with me and point out that the "I'm a mac ads are overrated," but got confused.
3. A mac-user logged onto daddy's slashdot account and was very upset by what he read
4. The "I'm a mac" guy got mod points.
It was at least better than the annoying "I'm a Mac" ad. I'd rather have nonsense.
Okay I don't win the analogy award. Was it so bad that you couldn't get my point? If the guy didn't want to use facebook, he wouldn't be complaining, he would just stop using it. He's complaining, so saying "just stop using it then" is not really an insightful suggestion, anymore than "You don't like bush? Move to france" is a helpful suggestion.
The two are both really ways of saying "Shut up."
That was marked as insightful? A little like the old "If you don't like the way Bush runs america, you can move, america sucks anyway." That's not a good solution. Yes, there are issues with it, but there are some good uses with it too. For one thing, it's a great procrastination tool.
Begs the question "Why is this under YOUR rights online?" It should be under "non-american rights online" or rather "Terrorists getting what they deserve."
I disagree with the assesment of portal. The little sounds were great and haunting. I think that's what he was referring to more than the audio, and Glados' voice really took the cake (yeah, I went there). Plus...
***SPOILERS!!! DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY BEATEN IT!!!***
I remember the music not actually going with the puzzles. During the first part of the game, the only music I remember was the cheezy song playing over the radio, which was actually quite ominous after a while. The second actual music I remember was the tense music as you were being carried to your fiery doom, which really did get my heart pumping. The third was during the actual end battle which didn't help much, but Glados's voice(s) and dialogue really stole that act anyway. The fourth and best music was during the credits. I'm still amazed at that one. It helped end the game on a whimsical, not quite ominous note that also did a great job reflecting the glados character.
It did have sort of ambient sounds that sounded like instruments sorta. The one time I remember that really standing out was when you came across the first hidden alcove with crazy writings on the wall from test subjects who went insane.
Portal did have amazing audio and soundtrack both in the very subtle use of mood-setting music, which made it so effective, and the brilliance of the few songs which were in it. It's quite incorrect to say it was just "solve the puzzle" soundtrack.
Now completely off topic, but someone pointed out to me that the best option all around is to bring your own cloth bags. No waste there, even paper bags are more wasteful than re-using one. Also they don't rip. And a lot of places give you discounts on the order of 5 cents per bag, for what that's worth (about 20 cents on average is the answer there.)
To be honest, I really just do it to decrease the number of trips I have to make to the dumpster, for the smugness, and because some of those grocery baggers look like they need the mental stimulation.
Did you not read the VERY NEXT LINE in my post?
Vint Cerf may have created the internet, but I'm a fortune teller and therefore have more authority over the future of the internet. The future is not robots, it's ham sandwiches. Amazing, isn't it? It will give you what I call telesancwichessence.
There are dozens of other choices, but none where I can virtually fight vampires AND do virtual cheerleading. Also Buffy has lesbian witches. Therefore no, there aren't any BETTER choices.
Agh! Sorry, I just noticed you answered that somewhere up the tree. Yet another case of where the "mod my own comment down" option would be great.
I don't expect absolute proof. I do, however, expect some proof that a computer model works before I base my actions on it.
Why exactly? When the risks of doing nothing are greater than the risks of being proactive. CO2 soaks up heat, there's more CO2 in the atmosphere. That's not enough to convince you that we should switch from oil and coal? Do you also need a computer model to convince you that we're running out of oil (and coal too, although last I heard we've got quite a bit more time on that)?
Uh... woosh? I was more making fun of HR departments that turn down people based off of facebook profiles.
Well, I think the reason the people you identify as the global warming industry don't mention that is because that's not what's changing. Water vapor is not driving global warming if it's happening, the CO2 is.
If 65 degrees is the perfect temperature for you, and you set the thermostat is set for 65 degrees, that's just perfect. If someone comes along and pushes it up 5 more degrees you're going to be hot. If you say "hey why'd you turn it up to 70" and he says "don't blame me, I turned it up only 5 degrees, you did most of it!" you're going to think he's an argumentative asshole who is still responsible for the house being too hot even if he's telling the truth.
CO2 is the problem, the climate was working fine with the water vapor.
Frankly, it would be idiotic to mention the water vapor to the american public as it would only confuse them as you have been confused. The main reason little has been done about climate change is because you can't prove it in ten words or less to the public, it's a more complicated story that is easily obfuscated by throwing in facts like you just did without context.
I admit I don't have much proof that the PS3 is doing poorly, but the wiki pages say the PS3 has sold numbers that are lower than the 360. Hard to account for the gap in releases, but the point is that it's not a blowaway sucess compared to the 360. It's also not very scientific, but I don't personally know anyone with a PS3, I know of many with 360s. That could be due to the Japan thing. And with games, the tide certainly seems to be going in the favor of the 360.
Reguardless, the 360 is not the worst console, that's absurd.
That's some shoddy logic there. Extreme oversimplification. The 360 has lost a lot of money due to the technical problems. The logical conclusion there is to fix those problems and not make the same mistakes, yet you seem willing to declare a microsoft console as fundamentally a bad idea that can never work. Tell me it's not just because you're upset about the state of PC gaming.
PC gaming is dying out because people like to play games rather than wasting time on computer maintenece. I know what your opinion of us must be, but I get no joy out of installing new software or hardware so I can play the latest game. I could definitely learn how to do that, but I much prefer plugging my console into the TV, putting the disc in, and playing immediately. I play games to relax, not to do work. MS spending money on the PC market would be a waste.
I also have to point out that the PS3 is not doing great either. You'd have me believe that the next console is going to be just nintendo out there alone?
I find it arrogant to condem the entire species for the logical errors of a few dirty, dirty hippies!
Kidding about the dirty hippies part, but I do have a real point: the debate about global warming is non-scientists using non-scientific arguments to advance their non-scientific prejudices reguardless of truth.
Emphasis on the non-science part there. Just want to clarify that it's not that no one is trying to prove cause and effect, it's that most of the noise has nothing to do about hypothesis testing.
I also don't know about calling it arrogance. We know CO2 soaks up heat and we know there's a lot of CO2 being released. That right there to me justifies taking preventative steps. Of course, there are a powerful few very opposed to this. The resulting controversy is very predictable. It would be nice to pre-empt that with hard science, but it remains to be seen if proving it wrong or right is possible. It would also be great if we could just deal with it once we know for sure, but of course we have reason to suspect that would be a foolish way to go.
The flaw in the species that I see is the inability to see things as more than a dichotomy. It seems like too many people have boiled it down to "Do we save the environment or the economy," been unable to answer that, and settled for which advocates do they like better, the hippies or the lawyers?
Man, are you guys even TRYING anymore? It was just a few months ago that every first post talked about cold urine. What happened? Ran out of meth?